Talk:Mengjiang
You think a "Puppet States" category could be desirable? We certainly have enough, thanks in no small part to the Axis. Turtle Fan 04:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC) :Probably. We might think about additional levels of specificity, ie, Puppet States of ______. TR 15:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC) ::I suppose, but that could create a lot of baby categories that can't stand on their own feet, especially with OTL/ATL splits. (Asterisks for pure ATL as I can think of at the moment.) ::Let's spitball 'em now: ::Japan: Mengjiang, Manchukuo, Hawaii*, Korea, Burma, Singapore ::USSR: Mongolia, Tannu Tuva, Slovakia, Slovenia, Hungary, Poland, Germany, Italy*, San Marino* ::Germany: Vichy France, Free India, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Norway, Britain*, United States* ::Britain: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, NAU*, Burma, Ulster ::US: Cuba, Haiti, Hawaii, Quebec*, Liberia, Panama, Philippines ::Hmm, maybe it would work after all. ::Maybe something less provocative, like "client states," would enable us to cast an appropriately wide net without stirring up needless controversy. Turtle Fan 19:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC) :::Singapore wasn't a puppet state. Jelay14 19:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC) :::::I stand corrected. Syonan-to--I thought it signalled the establshment of a new regime, as did the renamings of Mengjiang and Manchukuo, but it was just a name. Turtle Fan 23:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC) ::::Except Ulster and Burma, the countries listed with Britain aren't puppets either. Commonwealths may have value. :::::Australia, Canada, et cetera were once ruled directly by the Brits. Now they're ruled by local Anglo-Saxons (and of course in Canada's case some folks of Gallic extraction) on behalf of the Queen of Britain. I don't know bow many Aborigines and Amerindians would agree that this is an improvement. Puppet state/client state are rather vaguely defined terms, and in such cases we've always erred on the side of ::::::Puppet States to my mind are imposed by a foreign country. Not the case with the Dominions. They reflected the popular opinion of the people who were loyal subjects and willing members of the Empire. :::::::The people who were anything but indigenous to the nations in question. The locals didn't care whether they were ruled directly by London or London by way of Ottawa/Canberra. They were being denied self-determination just the same. Turtle Fan 19:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC) ::::::::If by this, you are referring to the native peoples, then that was a straight imperialistic land grab. The US did the same thing. By your logic, the US is also a puppet state. Whose I cannot say. ML4E 05:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC) :::::::::The US is undeniably its own master, so puppet state doesn't apply. The land grab against the indigenous peoples is as dishonorable as any Dominion's, no more no less; but the combination of de jure and de facto independence precludes the puppet state definition. ::::::::::You continue to work under the mistaken assumption that policy was set in London. It was not. Policy regarding native peoples was set in Ottawa and in much the same way as Washington namely to please their respective constituencies of European settlers and their descendants. ML4E 02:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC) :::::::::::London had veto power over everything Ottawa did in the early days, so they granted tacit consent to whatever was done by Canadians for Canadians--which by the way would, I should say, qualify the Dominions as having been puppet states, even without the question of indigenes. Turtle Fan 19:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC) ::::::::::The Monarch could exercise what is know as "Royal Prerogative" and the British legislature needed to amend the BNA Act if Canada wanted to amend its constitution but I am not aware of any other authorities. I am also not aware of any Monarch doing so and amendments were always were carried out as requested by Canada without change. Are you aware of any instances where a "veto" was carried out? :::::::::::Me, no. So I did some digging. Says Dr Andrew Heard of Simon Fraser's PoliSci department: :::::::::::::"At its inception in 1867, Canada's colonial status was marked by political and legal subjugation to British Imperial supremacy in all aspects of government - legislative, judicial, and executive. The Imperial Parliament at Westminster could legislate on any matter to do with Canada and could override any local legislation, the final court of appeal for Canadian litigation lay with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London, the Governor General had a substantive role as a representative of the British government, and ultimate executive power was vested in the British Monarch - who was advised only by British Ministers in its exercise. Canada's independence came about as each of these sub-ordinations was eventually removed." :::::::::::I'm eminently unqualified to peer-review the above so I pass it along un-commented upon. Turtle Fan 23:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC) ::::::::::::Interesting. I had forgotten that the Supreme Court of Canada wasn't created until mid-20th Century and that final appeals went to Britain until it was. However, this quote only illustrates the process of evolution of Canada from a colony to an independent country. I asked for specific cases where Britain over-ruled Canadian wishes. What's the source of your quote? Does Dr. Heard list specific cases later or is it just the theoretical list of not necessarily used powers as in the quote? ML4E 20:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC) ::::::::::In addition this power does not necessarily lead to puppethood. Or do you consider the US Congress the President's puppet since he can veto their legislation? ML4E 18:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC) :::::::::::His veto's not the final say. It can be overridden. In fact, in a strictly legal construction Congress comes much closer to subjugating the President than vice versa. Congress can deny him access to funds, reject nearly any executive or judicial officer other than members of the Presidential staff, even remove the President and Vice President from office. All the President can force Congress to do is convene--and if they really don't want to, they can adjourn as soon as he leaves the room. The VP presides over the Senate but he's as useful in that capacity as tits on a bull. ::::::::::This is my point. A veto by itself is not an indication of puppethood. ML4E 20:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC) :::::::::::So there's reciprocity, both in the legal theory and in the political reality; the interaction between the two branches is a meeting of equals. To the extent that London and Ottawa have been equals, it's in their ''non-''interaction. Every move toward greater autonomy on Ottawa's, Canberra's, or Wellington's part has been in the forms of demands to be left alone. And on London's part, the Balfour Declaration and the Statute of Westminster were both about saying "We can't afford to wipe your asses anymore, it's time to leave the nest." Turtle Fan 23:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC) ::::::::::You must admit that London's wish to cede responsibility for its Dominions is the opposite of that of a puppetmaster.ML4E 20:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC) :::::::::The closest situation (and no, it's not a perfect fit) I can think of in American history was the six-year period when Hawaii was an alleged republic whose number one foreign policy priority was to be annexed by the US. There the US played the analogous role to Britain, not the Dominions. Turtle Fan 15:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC) :::::::By the way, I disagree that puppet states are necessarily imposed by a foreign country. There are any number of reasons for one country to want to enter into another's sphere of influence, and any number of examples thereof. Finland invited Germany in so that it could launch the Continuation War against the Soviet Union. Scotland was relieved when Marie de Guise shipped young Queen Mary the Only off to Versailles in exchange for a French army that would put an end to the Rough Wooing. Norway happily offered itself up to be put at British disposal to safeguard its independence in the first few years of its existence as a sovereign country in the modern era. In the first two decades of the nineteenth century, Central Europe was brimming with small nations that wanted to be dominated by Napoleon's empire. A Korean king once pissed off the Emperor of China to such an extent that the Chinese prepared to invaded. The king sent an army to resist; the commanding general realized all was lost, returned to Seoul, assassinated his monarch, claimed the crown and announced that Korea would become a Chinese client state. This usurper was far more popular at every level of society than the king who wanted his people to suffer the hardships of an unwinnable war just to keep up appearances. Turtle Fan 20:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC) ::::::::Finland in WWII isn't what an example I would use for a "puppet state"... Jelay14 04:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC) :::::::::They were scrappier than most, even willing to tell Hitler to stick it here and there. But they still placed themselves well within the German sphere of influence--and in the postwar AH of the Worldwar timeline, they had become much more nearly a German puppet. So that works for our purposes. And it's based on an evolution of trends begun but not pursued very far in OTL. Turtle Fan 19:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC) :::::::::And that sentence I typed above isn't an example of good, sober grammar. Jelay14 04:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC) ::::::Also, Diefenbaker and Mulroney are well known Anglo-Saxon family names. <_< ML4E 18:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC) :::::Oh, and the Brits also had some African puppet states for a little while there. Turtle Fan 23:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC) ::::It appears that many of the places you listed will probably also be found in the ______ Empire categories. Maybe instead of puppet states, we should revisit those categories, as most will certainly justify an OTL/ATL split, and then return to weighing and measuring puppet states. TR 20:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC) :::::Maybe. Puppet states and colonies both fit well within the imperial categories. Turtle Fan 23:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC) ::::::They may well be both associated with imperialism but they are two different concepts. ML4E 18:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)